Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Babylon 5/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:12, 8 July 2008.

Babylon 5

 * Nominator(s): Kosh3 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... It explains the show much better than the average tv show article. It is easy to understand, interesting to read, and includes quotes from the producer to help further understanding. It is an all around fantastic article. It has been through the good article revision process and has now improved to the point of worthiness of being a featured article.Kosh3 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Speaking as the user who has made the most edits to the article, it isn't even Good Article quality yet. Please see Talk:Babylon 5/to do for the list of improvements still to make. Everything above Babylon 5 is well-cited, but there's a long way to go before this can even be considered for Featured status. Edit: I echo Mr Gustafson's call below for the nomination to be withdrawn. Steve  T • C 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose


 * Lead is too short for an article of this size; please expand it per WP:LEAD.
 * MOS issues throughout, including placement of references ("kids or cute robots"[8]).") per WP:FN, and "Season one - 2258" per WP:DASH
 * Format references per WP:CITE/ES.

Gary King ( talk ) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is woefully inadequate for a subject of such importance to not just the history of science fiction, but of television itself.  This article fails most of the criteria and stands no chance of promotion in anything resembling its current state, and I recommend the nominator withdraw the nomination.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 06:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title.
 * Large sections are unreferenced.
 * I did not evaluate the sources for reliablity, because with so many sections lacking source citations, the citations are likely to change. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - the article isn't ready yet, as per the notes of Steve, Gary and Jeffrey. My humble suggestion is that you submit the article for Peer Review, and get some uninvolved feedback on what the article is missing, what it needs (or needs more of), and make sure the images you are using are rock solid. There has been a lot of wacky noms recently over folk who interpret NFC criteria vastly different from the rest of the community - it's best to bulletproof the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn; per this, I'll withdraw this nomination. Please leave the  template in place until the bot runs, per WP:FAC/ar.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.